Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37097 (PNJ)

RAM PIARI v. KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS

COCP/1179/2024 · 2025-08-28

Sudeepti Sharma

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

COCP-1179-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 COCP-1179-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 28th, 2025 Ram Piari ......Petitioner Vs. Krishan Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Manhas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral) 1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA-999-1996. 2. The relevant portion of order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in in RFA-999-1996, is reproduced as under:- “13. In view of above, considering the fact that the compensation qua the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Phangota Teeka Kattal, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur (now District Pathankot) relating to notifications dated 06.01.1992 and 30.01.1992 already stands determined @ Rs.90,462/- for all kinds of Barani land, the appellants/landowners herein are also SAHIL 2025.09.04 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1179-2024 (O&M) -2- held entitled to the same amount of compensation for Barani Doyam category and for Abbi nature of land the compensation is assessed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre besides grant of all other statutory benefits/interest payable under the 1894 Act, while relying upon decision dated 02.11.2018 made in case of Usha Rani (II)'s case (supra). Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants/landowners are allowed and the appeals filed by the State are dismissed.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that in compliance of order dated 23.11.2023, compliance affidavit of Varinder Kumar, Chief Engineer RSD, Department of Water Resources, Punjab, Shahpurkandi Township, dated 07.12.2024 along with Annexure R/1 and R/2, has been filed, which is attached with the present petition. 4. The relevant portion of compliance affidavit of Varinder Kumar, Chief Engineer RSD, Department of Water Resources, Punjab, Shahpurkandi Township, filed on 07.12.2024, is reproduced as under:- “3. That the E-File was send to the Department of Finance Government of Punjab through the Administrative Department for seeking sanction amounting the Rs 19,60,381/- (Nineteen Lacs, Sixty Thousand, Three Hundred Eighty one only) which was the received from the Department of Finance on date 04.11.2024 wide letter No FD-FE-40CC/4/2021- 4FE4/959154/2024 and the same has been released to office of Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi Township. (Annexure R-1) 4. That the O/o Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi Township has released the payment of Rs. 16,72,934/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs, Seventy Two SAHIL 2025.09.04 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1179-2024 (O&M) -3- Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Four only) to the petitioners/Beneficiary on dated 28.11.2024 and 2,87,447/- is pending as PAN Card is not being provided by Co-Sharer and when it will be provided, balance amount will be disbursed to remaining person (Annexure R-2)” 5. In view of the above compliance affidavit, so far as respondents are concerned, they have complied with the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA-999-1996. Rs.2,87,447/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Four hundred Forty Seven) is pending since PAN Card is not provided by co-sharer. The Co-sharer is directed to provide the PAN Card so that the amount of Rs.2,87,447/- can be released by the respondents. 5. Since, Rs.2,87,447/- could not be paid because the lapse is on the part of the co-sharer, therefore, respondents cannot be held liable for the disobedience of order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA-999-1996. 6. In view of the above, the contempt is purged and rule is discharged. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE August 28th, 2025 Sahil Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SAHIL 2025.09.04 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.